Juan Cole, Consultant to the CIA

Juan Cole is a brand name that is no longer trusted. And that has been the case for some time for the good Professor from Michigan. After warning of the "difficulties" with the Iraq War, Cole swung over to ply it with wet kisses on the day of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. His fervor was not based on Saddam Hussein’s fictional possession of weapons of mass destruction but on the virtues of "humanitarian imperialism."

Thus on March 19, 2003, as the imperial invasion commenced, Cole enthused on his blog: "I remain convinced that, for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides"(emphasis mine). Now, with over 1 million Iraqis dead, 4 million displaced and the country’s infrastructure destroyed, might Cole still echo Madeline Albright that the price was "worth it"? Cole has called the Afghan War "the right war at the right time" and has emerged as a cheerleader for Obama’s unconstitutional war on Libya and for Obama himself.

Cole claims to be a man of the "Left" and he appears with painful frequency on Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now as the reigning "expert" on the war on Libya. This is deeply troubling – on at least two counts. First, can one be a member of the "Left" and also an advocate for the brutal intervention by the Great Western Powers in the affairs of a small, relatively poor country? Apparently so, at least in Democracy Now’s version of the "Left." Second, it appears that Cole’s essential function these days is to convince wavering progressives that the war on Libya is fine and dandy. But how can such damaged goods as Cole credibly perform this marketing mission so vital to Obama’s war?

Miraculously, Cole got just the rehabilitation he needed to continue with this vital propaganda function when it was disclosed by the New York Times on June 15 that he was the object of a White House inquiry way back in 2005 in Bush times. The source and reason for this leak and the publication of it by the NYT at this time, so many years later, should be of great interest, but they are unknown. Within a week of the Times piece Cole was accorded a hero’s welcome on Democracy Now, as he appeared with retired CIA agent Glenn Carle who had served 23 years in the clandestine services of the CIA in part as an "interrogator." Carl had just retired from the CIA at the time of the White House request and was at the time employed at the National Intelligence Council, which authors the National Intelligence Estimate.

It hit this listener like a ton of bricks when it was disclosed in Goodman’s interview that Cole was a long time "consultant" for the CIA, the National Intelligence Council and other agencies. Here is what nearly caused me to keel over when I heard it (From the Democracy Now transcript.):

AMY GOODMAN: So, did you know Professor Cole or know of him at the time you were asked? And can you go on from there? What happened when you said you wouldn’t do this? And who was it who demanded this information from you, said that you should get information?

GLENN CARLE: Well, I did know Professor Cole. He was one of a large number of experts of diverse views that the National Intelligence Council and my office and the CIA respectively consult with to challenge our assumptions and understand the trends and issues on our various portfolios. So I knew him that way. And it was sensible, in that sense, that the White House turned to my office to inquire about him, because we were the ones, at least one of the ones — I don’t know all of Mr. Cole’s work — who had consulted with him (emphases mine).

That seems like strange toil for a man of the "Left." But were the consultations long drawn out and the association with the CIA a deep one? It would appear so. Again from the transcript:

AMY GOODMAN: Well, the way James Risen (the NYT reporter) writes it, he says, "Mr. Carle said [that] sometime that year, he was approached by his supervisor, David Low, about Professor Cole. [Mr.] Low and [Mr.] Carle have starkly different recollections of what happened. According to Mr. Carle, [Mr.] Low returned from a White House meeting one day and inquired who Juan Cole was, making clear [that] he wanted [Mr.] Carle to gather information on him. Mr. Carle recalled [his] boss saying, ‘The White House wants to get him.’"

GLENN CARLE:Well, that’s substantially correct. The one nuance, perhaps, I would point out is there’s a difference between collecting information actively, going out and running an operation, say, to find out things about Mr. Cole, or providing information known through interactions (emphasis mine). I would characterize it more as the latter.

And later in the interview Carle continues:

On the whole, Professor Cole and I are in agreement. The distinction I make is it wasn’t publicly known information that was requested; it was information that officers knew of a personal nature about Professor Cole, which is much more disturbing. There was no direct request that I’m aware, in the two instances of which I have knowledge, for the officers actively to seek and obtain, to conduct — for me to go out and follow Professor Cole. But if I knew lifestyle questions or so on, to pass those along (emphasis mine). That’s how I — which is totally unacceptable.

It would seem then that the interaction between the CIA operatives and Cole was long standing and sufficiently intimate that the CIA spooks could be expected to know things about Cole’s lifestyle and personal life. It is not that anyone should give two figs about Cole’s personal life which is more than likely is every bit as boring as he claims. But his relationship with the CIA is of interest since he is an unreconstructed hawk. What was remarkable to me at the time is that Goodman did not pick up on any of this. Did she know before of Cole’s connections? Was not this the wrong man to have as a "frequent guest," in Goodman’s words, on the situation in the Middle East?

This is not to claim that Cole is on a mission for the CIA to convince the Left to support the imperial wars most notably at the moment the war on Libya. Nor is this a claim that the revelation about the White House seeking information on Cole was a contrived psyops effort to rehabilitate Cole so that he could continue such a mission. That cannot be claimed, because there is as yet no evidence for it. But information flows two ways in any consultation, and it is even possible that Cole was being loaded with war-friendly information in hopes he would transmit it.

Cole is anxious to promote himself as a man of the Left as he spins out his rationale for the war on Libya. At one point he says to Goodman (3/29), "We are people of the left. We care about the ordinary people. We care about workers." It is strange that a man who claims such views dismisses as irrelevant the progress that has come to the people of Libya under Gaddafi, dictator or not. (Indeed what brought Gaddafi down was not that he was a dictator but that he was not our dictator.) In fact Libya has the highest score of all African countries on the UN’s Human Development Index (HDI) and with Tunisia and Morocco the second highest level of literacy. The HDI is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living for countries worldwide. A glance at the map here says it all.

Whither The Left on the Question of Intervention?

None of this is all too surprising given Cole’s status as a "humanitarian" hawk. But it is surprising and troubling that he is so often called on by Democracy Now for his opinion. One of his appearances there was in a debate on the unconstitutional war in Libya, with the estimable Vijay Prashad taking the antiwar side and Cole prowar. It would seem strange for the Left to have to debate the worth of an imperial intervention. Certainly if one goes back to the days of the Vietnam War there were teach-ins to inform the public of the lies of the U.S. government and the truth about what was going on in Vietnam. But let us give Democracy Now the benefit of the doubt and say that the debate was some sort of consciousness raising effort. Why later on invite as a frequent guest a man who was the pro-war voice in the debate? That is a strange choice indeed.

This writer does not get to listen to Democracy Now every day. But I have not in recent weeks heard a full-throated denunciation of the war on Libya from host or guests. Certainly according to a search on the DN web site, Cynthia McKinney did not appear as a guest nor Ramsey Clark after their courageous fact finding tour to Libya. There was only one all out denunciation of the war – on the day when the guests were Rev. Jesse Jackson and Vincent Harding who was King’s speechwriter on the famous speech "Beyond Vietnam" in 1967 in which King condemned the U.S. war on Vietnam. Jackson and the wise and keenly intelligent Harding were there not to discuss Libya but to discuss the MLK Jr. monument. Nonetheless Jackson and Harding made clear that they did not like the U.S. war in Libya one bit, nor the militarism it entails.

If one reads CounterPunch, Antiwar.com or The American Conservative, one knows that one is reading those who are anti-interventionist on the basis of principle. With Democracy Now and kindred progressive outlets, one is not so sure where some segments of the "Left" stand, especially since the advent of Obama. In his superb little book Humanitarian Imperialism Jean Bricmont criticizes much of the Left for falling prey to advocacy of wars, supposedly based on good intentions. And Alexander Cockburn has often wondered aloud whether many progressives are actually quite fond of "humanitarian" interventionism. Both here and in Europe this fondness seems to be especially true of Obama’s latest war, the war on Libya. It is little wonder that the "progressives" are losing their antiwar following to Ron Paul and the Libertarians who are consistent and principled on the issue of anti-interventionism.

Democracy Now, quo vadis? Wherever you are heading, you would do well to travel without Juan Cole and his friends.

Author: John V. Walsh

Juan Cole. Excuse me for just a brief moment, needs a go outside and spit.

Jim

Good article! I tweeted Cole's 2003 comment where he said, “the horrors Saddam has perpetrated makes it impossible for me to stand against the coming war" (linked here: http://hnn.us/articles/1242.html). He responded to me on Aug. 27, 2011 by tweeting back: "which is not the same thing as saying I thought that war was a good idea; I did not." So, he supported the invasion of Iraq, but didn't think it was a "good idea." Huh? He's trying to have it both ways, of course. As a lefty, I loved Cole's blog throughout the Bush years, but I was stunned to recently learn he actually supported the invasion of Iraq and now the Libya "project." I thought he was one of the "good guys" for many years, but no more. Remember, liberals can be neoCons, too.

Null Void

My god…Juan Cole, now Amy Goodman? The Amy Goodman part is a real stab in the back; so much for the "War and Peace Report". What a fucking tragedy.

john

first off, " Demoracy Now " has been a Zionist show, what did you expect, amy goodman is a traitor, never listen to this show anymore

thedissenter

I knew it wouldn't be long before the lefties turned on DemocracyNow! ha ha!

You people should all move to Cuba. Or Venezuela. It would be a hell of a lot easier for the rest of us to deal with just the righties.

MvGuy

All that GOLD and….. in a TIME of GOLD!! All that OIL and …..in the endtimes of OIL… A dream cum tru for thoz who lust for the possessions of others…. Is this LUST the motivator of everything.all of us do or only…those in power…. the ones we elect… As for Cole…. He seemed so sensible when he was against the bush policy……… Perhaps his thinking has become addled by living so close to the war-zone disaster AKA Detroit……. As this riot radiates outward and engulfs the entire state…… Just in time for the 911 enabling act 's tenth birthday ……..Back then, just as now, it was larceny that oiled it's run…….

Tom Mauel

Juan Cole is listed as a contributor to AntiWar on the front web page. What sense does that make?

WashingtonDC goddamn

Time to remove War-Loving Wan Cole's name from AntiWar dot com's list of Additional Contributors. Please.

WashingtonDC goddamn

"…can one be a member of the "Left" and advocate brutal intervention….?" Well, Obama needs the intellectual class of Neo-Progressives on his side to put a pretty face on bloody interventionism. This guy is teaching war to your children at GO BLUE University. "Wet Kisses" indeed.

thedissenter

"…can one be a member of the "Left" and advocate brutal intervention….?"

Well, y'all advocate for the brutal repression of the peoples of Cuba, Libya, Iran and any and all other countries where their dictators have adopted the "anti-imperialist" talk as a way to push exactly the same policies that they spew so much about. See, y'all are stupid & those dictators y'all so admire know that and have discovered that the "anti-imperialist" talk is the button that makes y'all tick and throw your undying support behind their atrocities. See, y'all been punked, dudes! There are no good guys, not on the right and not on the left. Not the pro-imperialists or the anti-imperialists because they're all the shit at the end of the day. They all want the same thing and they all do the same. Time for you people to wake up from your self-induced stupor and face reality. There is no Utopia. There is no Garden of Eden. Life sucks! Adjust or jump off the ship.

O'Raiffeartaigh

Not too difficult to underatand:BO is the face of race-replacement via nonwhite immigration..on steroids..and now that homosexuals can serve openly in the "US" military…well the left is in a state of euphoria….the Democrats now have given a blank check to commit very serious and massive war crimes.

And then there is all that Soros money now going to the fomer rag-picker Amy Goodman…

It’s time to drop this canard that being of the Left is inconsistent with being a supporter of war and warmongering, particularly once one realizes leftism is simply another clique of gangsters using Big Government to extract as many resources from the People as possible, no different than the fascists or neocons.

Most Western leftists are self-serving poseurs and psycho-dramatists who put on theatrical shows of compassion and moral indignation more as a means of fitting in with the statist-liberal establishment consensus and advancing their careers than out of any deeply held principles.

Juan Cole is simply a left-wing careerist, a man who would have happily worked for the Soviet government in the 1920’s as a commissar liquidating the dissident opposition during the week and pampering and luxuriating himself at dachas on the weekend.

It goes to show how ignorant of Communist history and brainwashed by statist-liberalism Americans are that so many of them still conceptualize leftists as somehow morally superior, and that they are shocked, shocked!, when it turns out so many lefties are morally monstrous.

Or perhaps they’re not really shocked at all, and merely engaging in more phony liberal theatrics.

thedissenter

"It goes to show how ignorant of Communist history and brainwashed by statist-liberalism Americans are that so many of them still conceptualize leftists as somehow morally superior, and that they are shocked, shocked!, when it turns out so many lefties are morally monstrous."

You said it, bruther! However, I feel compelled to add something: the American left is the only one that considers itself morally superior, nobody else does. Most certainly not the right which considers itself even more morally superior than the left. And for sure not those of us who are on the sidelines watching the entire freak show with horror andare appalled by the fact that, while the right is brainwashed by their leaders, the left gladly and eagerly brainwashes itself. The idiots actually believe (and are willing to kill you over that one too just like their righties do) that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" – And good luck to you trying to persuade them otherwise because you will be shot, hung, decapitated or dismembered in the process. Anyone and everyone who talks the anti-imperialist talk is a friend and a good guy, their long record of horrors against their own people has no relevance in their minds as it is all lies and the CIA did it and blah blah blah. It's terrifying to watch! If you go on the home page, you'll find an article on the resignation of the Syrian Attorney Gen. It actually dares to suggest that the guy was kidnapped, tortured and forced to read a prepared statement. Now, that is what I call madness! I hate to use the word "conspiracy" but there's one if ever I saw one. Unbelievable! They will tell themselves anything, the most outrageous and farfetched things in order to justify their askew believes and to validate/support their position. They are really scary people and so very delusional and misguided.

WTF? I thought Juan Cole was a good guy. But I guess now he's a bad guy. Maybe tomorrow, he will be a good guy again. I am so confused. What's next, an article here stating that Justin Raimondo is really a CIA operative and former Mossad agent?

thedissenter

Juan Cole committed the capital sin of not talking the anti-imperialist talk which, as we all know, will set you free. That, in left circles, is grounds for immediate character assassination a-la-Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Taking the side of the people over that of their anti-imperialist spewing bladder tyrants is also a no-no. The people don't count. It's all about the talk.

I was a regular reader of Juan Cole until the Libya war kicked off and it was sickening to see him cheerleading it. For me it was shocking the way he tore into Israel so passionately during the 08 Gaza war and the Flotilla massacre and then applauded when his own country started bombing Tripoli in the same way.

He is a fool that learns nothing. In 6 months time when Libya goes bad he will turn against it again. Just like he did with Afghanistan, just like he did with Iraq.

If someone is a warmonger fine. But don't be a warmonger and then call yourself progressive or left wing or anti-war. The most patronizing was his "Top 10 reasons why the Anti-War movement is wrong on Libya" article. Absolute joke him posing as a Anti-War writer to lecture people on why bombing Libya is a good idea.

Remove him from the AntiWar.com contributors list !

thedissenter

Holy shit! It's open war on Juan Cole. I'd hate to be in the guy's shoes. Daring to cross the left has the same exact effect as daring to cross the right: they zero on you and annihilate you by whatever the vicious means are available to them. Heavens help us all!